[QUOTE=spoke-]
Presidents serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms under Iran’s Constitution. Cite.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re citing things that would indicate the Imams aren’t actually in control of the country. The “Face” isn’t running the show. Mahmoud, IMO, was elected because he’d give the least amount of resistance to those actually running the show.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
:dubious: That type of wild allegation requires a cite.
I’m no fan of Reagan, but Reagan wasn’t crazy.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll look, but I’m not sure if I can find a cite for something I read back in the late 80’s/early 90s. Besides, it’s not a wild allegation; why do you think the Russions were scared enough to consider a first strike ? They thought he might really believe that Rapture nonsense. As far as whether or not he really believed that the USSR and China were Gog and Magog and that true believers would be sucked into heaven before the missles hit, I have no way of telling if he was being honest or pandering to Falwell and friends of course. It’s not all that rare a belief you know; these days those millions of people buy the Left Behind books and talk about how we don’t need to worry about the future because the End Times are around the coner.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And what in the world makes you think any country is going to give terrorists nukes ? Or biological or chemical weapons, for that matter. Countries don’t do that; they don’t hand over that kind of power to loose cannons.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a pretty bold statement to make. Is there a website for the Queensbury rules for terrorist engagement? What are the rules exactly? We can eliminate using aircraft as missiles, decapitation, train bombings, arming militias with rockets, and a planet full of indescriminate killing. You think terrorists (or their sponsors) are trying to limit the death count? What’s your estimate?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
:rolleyes: Are you actually claiming it took restraint to not nuke Lebanon for one barracks worth of soldiers
[/QUOTE]
Of course not, I’m just responding to your assinine charge that the US is inherently predetermined to use nukes against anyone. Lacking a statement of wanting to “wipe [insert country of choice] off the face of the planet” , and your seeming support of a government that openly supports the statement, I’m just trying to understand your point.
US Marines died in Beirut. Should we have been spending our energy on Lebanon? Were the Lebenese responsible for the attack? Everything I’ve seen and read leads to Hezbollah (however the hell it’s spelled this week) funded by Iran via Syria. I humbly ask for correction on this matter.
Iran has been hell-bent on killing and disrupting the US for over a quarter century, and Israel, and any nation labeled as Western. And they’ve openly called for the destruction of all entities.
Seems reasonable to not worry about them having a nuke.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
And of course, the fact that most of Hezbollah’s attacks have been limited to the ME means… what, exactly?
[/QUOTE]
It means you are being intellectually dishonest, for one thing.
You are raising the spectre of nuclear attacks on US soil. You support this by waving the bloody shirt of “dead Americans.” (Ah, the old bloody shirt. A classic!)
For all the uninformed reader knows, these “dead Americans” were killed in Peoria. Last week.
“Hezbollah kills Americans!!!” you cry.
Well, yeah. Soldiers on the ground. In Lebanon. 20-some-odd years ago.
Your argument is intentionally misleading.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’ll look, but I’m not sure if I can find a cite for something I read back in the late 80’s/early 90s. Besides, it’s not a wild allegation; why do you think the Russions were scared enough to consider a first strike ? They thought he might really believe that Rapture nonsense. As far as whether or not he really believed that the USSR and China were Gog and Magog and that true believers would be sucked into heaven before the missles hit, I have no way of telling if he was being honest or pandering to Falwell and friends of course. It’s not all that rare a belief you know; these days those millions of people buy the Left Behind books and talk about how we don’t need to worry about the future because the End Times are around the coner.
[/QUOTE]
You’re going for the “Yeah, but I read it in a leaflet so it must be true! It was a leaflet, dammit, I can’t link to it!!!”
The Soviets (not Russians, there’s a difference) considered a first-strike? Really? You mean a government took time from their busy day to actually draw up military plans taking into account every possibility?!? I guess the fact that the US was outspending them is the reason they had to explain to the citizens of the socialist utopia why the bread ran out while drafting their speech to the Duma.
As far as the Left Behind series, never read it. But I would think you’d be the main cheerleader of it since it would take away those you deem unaccaptable.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well, yeah. Soldiers on the ground. In Lebanon. 20-some-odd years ago.
Your argument is intentionally misleading.
[/QUOTE]
I hope yours is as well.
When looking at hezbollah-caused deaths, is there a qualifier on nationality of the dead? And what is the time limit to mention it? 20 years appears to be the standard, but maybe you want to amend that.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
It means you are being intellectually dishonest, for one thing.
[/quote]
Wow, disingenuous, misleading, and now intellectually dishonest.
What, are you trying to pin jello to a wall and see what sticks?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
You are raising the spectre of nuclear attacks on US soil. You support this by waving the bloody shirt of “dead Americans.”
[/quote]
Actually, just as you believe I’m nefariously holding this position in order to secretly support Israel, so too do you ignore that my argument has focused on much more likely courses of events than a nuclear attack.
But, of course, addressing my actual argument would take… what’s that phrase… oh yeah, intellectual honesty.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
“Hezbollah kills Americans!!!” you cry.
[/quote]
“But most of their killings and hijackings and bombings have been in the middle east!” you obfuscate.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well, yeah. Soldiers on the ground. In Lebanon. 20-some-odd years ago.
[/quote]
As I have already provided a cite as to the hijackings and embassy bombings, I can only assume that you are lying. Rather distasteful to lie in order to claim that someone else has been misleading, no?
But it’s good to know that in addition to pretending that all those other attacks didn’t happen, you seem to be arguing that somehow it’s okay… because Americans were in the middle east.
Should Americans not be allowed to visit the ME?
Should we not have embassies there?
Should we not participate in peacekeeping operations there?
For the second time, what, exactly, is your point?
[QUOTE=duffer]
You’re going for the “Yeah, but I read it in a leaflet so it must be true! It was a leaflet, dammit, I can’t link to it!!!”
[/quote]
No, it was a book. Sorry, but I read more than one a decade, so I haven’t memorized the text and title of every single one in the last 30 years. I don’t bother to read leaflets, from anyone.
[QUOTE=duffer]
The Soviets (not Russians, there’s a difference) considered a first-strike? Really? You mean a government took time from their busy day to actually draw up military plans taking into account every possibility?!?
[/quote]
I didn’t say they planned for it; I said they considered doing it. In order to kill us before Reagan killed them. It wasn’t contingency planning. You are distorting what I said, because you don’t want to admit that he was a monster, and that people feared him because he was a monster.
[QUOTE=duffer]
I guess the fact that the US was outspending them is the reason they had to explain to the citizens of the socialist utopia why the bread ran out while drafting their speech to the Duma.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: They weren’t afraid of him outspending them; they were afraid of him killing them, along with their entire population.
[QUOTE=duffer]
As far as the Left Behind series, never read it. But I would think you’d be the main cheerleader of it since it would take away those you deem unaccaptable.
[/QUOTE]
And I and everyone else not a fundie Christian suffers and dies horribly; that’s the point. That’s why it’s been referred to as Christian sado-porn.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I didn’t say they planned for it; I said they considered doing it. In order to kill us before Reagan killed them. It wasn’t contingency planning. You are distorting what I said, because you don’t want to admit that he was a monster, and that people feared him because he was a monster
[/QUOTE]
So they considered doing it, while not planning for it? They wanted to bomb “us”? You said you’d be happy if the US were destroyed. If you think Reagan was the end of the world, I can better understand your POV.
Though, as stated you want the U to be destroyed, I’m not clear on your views of Reagan. If he was the embodiment of evil, I’d think you would be a fan.
Maybe you hate him because he didn’t push the button? You’ve lost me. In 1984 there were a bunch of people that may want to learn your “truth”. Why do I get the feeling a Pitting is in the making?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
… But if Israel fears Iran, let Israel fight Iran. I don’t want the US fighting a proxy war for Israel. (Since you raise the topic of proxy wars.)…
I am getting very tired of sacrificing America’s sons and daughters in the Middle East, particularly when I don’t see the US getting any benefit from it – only new generations of angry terrorists…
[/QUOTE]
Rather late now to come to that conclusion isn’t it?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
…I have no way of telling if he was being honest or pandering to Falwell and friends of course. It’s not all that rare a belief you know; these days those millions of people buy the Left Behind books and talk about how we don’t need to worry about the future because the End Times are around the coner.
[/QUOTE]
Is that really true? No, really?
Whether or not Ahmadinejad really pulls the strings in Iran strikes me as irrelevant
Idi Amin had this great idea of putting suitcase bombs in his embassies, fortunately nobody was insane enough to give him a hand.
We might have had relative peace due to MAD, it is also likely that we had relative peace regardless of MAD - since it is quite possible to fight a conventional war without using every tool in the toolbox - eg: no gas used in WWII - although everyone had it.
Personally I don’t think it is too much to worry about, the first people that Ahmadinejad would go for would be the Israelis, and you can be pretty certain that every other person operating those ‘non-existent’ centifuges is on their pay roll.
The stupid thing about it is that Iran is making itself vulnerable because its leader is acting irrationally. Rational people are not much of a danger, since one can predict their actions.
Irrational people are a menace.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
For the second time, what, exactly, is your point?
[/QUOTE]
That I do not care to expend American lives and treasure to maintain a US presence in the Middle East.
That the US presence in the Middle East has been and continues to be the motivating factor for terrorists who target the US.
That attacking Iran would serve only to create more terrorism.
That the time to stop this spiral of tit-for-tat violence is now. (Actually, one war ago, but better late than never.)
That war in the Middle East is costing the US international respect and esteem (and who knows what else in under-the-table bargaining to try to win support from Russia and China).
That Middle Eastern oil is a fungible commodity which will find its way to us in the market whether or not we insist on maintaining troops there.
That Israel should fight its own wars rather than lobby the US to send its sons and daughters as proxy fighters.
I think that covers it.
Oh, a few more:
That the leaders of Iran are not “crazy” or “irrational.”
That we have put Iran on a list entitled “Axis of Evil” and that they are quite rationally seeking a nuclear weapon to deter attack against themselves (of the sort which befell Iraq).
That their overblown rhetoric is an attempt to shore up their base at home and is not to be taken seriously. (Much like Reagan’s rhetoric.)
That many (probably most) within Iran actually suppport improved relations with the US.
That any such good will would vanish if the US attacks Iran.
One more:
That by responding in kind to bellicose language from Iran we play into their hands by shoring up an unpopular leadership.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That I do not care to expend American lives and treasure to maintain a US presence in the Middle East.
That the US presence in the Middle East has been and continues to be the motivating factor for terrorists who target the US.
That attacking Iran would serve only to create more terrorism.
That the time to stop this spiral of tit-for-tat violence is now. (Actually, one war ago, but better late than never.)
That war in the Middle East is costing the US international respect and esteem (and who knows what else in under-the-table bargaining to try to win support from Russia and China).
That Middle Eastern oil is a fungible commodity which will find its way to us in the market whether or not we insist on maintaining troops there.
That Israel should fight its own wars rather than lobby the US to send its sons and daughters as proxy fighters.
I think that covers it.
[/QUOTE]
I am from the UK and I don’t much like our guys being out there
I do not agree that the US presence is the motivation for terrorism that targets the US - you can only get a pint into a pint glass - they don’t need motivation they had 100% before 9/11
Attacking Iran is not a pleasant idea, mainly because it would create another mess like Iraq - the impact on terrorism would be negligable - it is like cutting off someones head to sort out bowel cancer - and yes, it would reduce terrorism.
The way to stop this tit-for-tat violence is to hit the right tit.
Russia and China are both sh/t scared of Fundamentalism, Russia went into Afghanistan to wipe it out and China actually has a border with Afghanistan.
Both are sympathetic, both are going to be very, very rich and they don’t want a peasant uprising to spoil things for them.
Middle Eastern oil is fungible, but real Islamiscists would blow up the wells, probably before they executed their current Governments. Saudi expelled US troops because of Iraq, but I’ll bet they would welcome them back.
Israel is quite capable of fighting its own wars, it is now rather disgruntled because it got pulled back on a choke chain. All that stuff about shipping Bunker Busters via the UK was a public relations exercise, the Israelis are very good at high tech, and they have been stocked up since GWI.
If Spoke, you were bitching about US ineptness, then I would agree with you, but you seem to have some rather peculiar views.
The big problem is that some rather unpleasant governments have long been restrained from dealing with their own domestic and even more repulsive dissidents by bleating ‘world opinion’ led by the USA.
Curiously this fiasco is probably more stabilizing than destabilizing, as it allows sensible people like Mubarek, Musharef, Putin and the faceless ones in China to do unspeakable things to people who would love to do even more unspeakable things to you.
If the USA had any sense it would start saying that the prerequisite for democracy is the abolition of religion in politics
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I do not agree that the US presence is the motivation for terrorism that targets the US - you can only get a pint into a pint glass - they don’t need motivation they had 100% before 9/11
[/quote]
We had US troops in Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11.
Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
2+2=?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That we have put Iran on a list entitled “Axis of Evil” and that they are quite rationally seeking a nuclear weapon to deter attack against themselves (of the sort which befell Iraq).
[/quote]
Iran was developing weaponized nuclear technology for about 18 years. As should be obvious, the actions of George W. Bush do not have effects backwards in time.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That I do not care to expend American lives and treasure to maintain a US presence in the Middle East.
[/quote]
And evidently you don’t care much that US embassies were targets of violence, as well as US civilians. Should we prohibit citizens from visiting/living in the ME, as well as cutting off all diplomatic relations? Should we never participate in any other peacekeeping missions if they’re in the ME?
Are you an isolationist, or do you just think that we don’t have any valid interests in the ME?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That the US presence in the Middle East has been and continues to be the motivating factor for terrorists who target the US.
[/quote]
The motivating factor?
And are there any other regions we shouldn’t be allowed to visit or have embassies in because fanatics might attack us? Should we just let ourselves be chased out of any region with terrorists, or only the ME?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That attacking Iran would serve only to create more terrorism.
[/quote]
Terrorists don’t get weapons and financing from out of thin air. Cut off their sponsorship, and they’re rendered impotent. Terrorists are not boogeymen. Cut off their source of logistics, funding, weapons, and they’re as useless as any other army without resources.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That the time to stop this spiral of tit-for-tat violence is now. (Actually, one war ago, but better late than never.)
[/quote]
You see any signs that Iran will stop supporting Hezbollah any time soon? Why is that situation any better than a ‘tit for tat’ strategy?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That war in the Middle East is costing the US international respect and esteem (and who knows what else in under-the-table bargaining to try to win support from Russia and China).
[/quote]
Not all actions in the ME fall into the same category. Iraq may be costing us in terms of international reputation, but there aren’t many nations that want a powerful Hezbollah or Iran.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That Middle Eastern oil is a fungible commodity which will find its way to us in the market whether or not we insist on maintaining troops there.
[/quote]
And yet, if we sit back and do nothing, and regimes fall to fundamentalists, we may very well see those oil revenues funneled directly into terrorism and/or war. We’d also see oil skyrocket in price.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
That Israel should fight its own wars rather than lobby the US to send its sons and daughters as proxy fighters.
[/quote]
:rolleyes:
Israel does fight its own wars, there is a difference between a proxy force and a stated ally, and, yet again, you are acting with intellectual dishonesty and deliberately ignoring that the US itself has its own valid interests at heart when it attempts to prevent Iran from going nuclear. As do other ME nations. As do European nations. As do Asian nations, etc… Why you’re determined to cast this in terms of Israel, and sling innuendo about hidden agendas and secret support for Israel, eh, I have no idea.
What do you think the Hezbollah cells in the US are here for? To organize bake sales? Do you think that Hezbollah will never again hijack a flight from Europe? Or that it can’t happen in America?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
That’s like saying Hitler wasn’t a threat to England because he invaded Poland. Iran sponsers terrorist activities against one of our strongets allies, Israel. Do you not understand the danger of a political system that actively supports arming a proxy army within Lebanon? A nation whose politicians shout “death to America” during parliamentary session is not stable. A nation that recruits suicide squads is not stable.
There is no debate here regarding the combination of governments who sponsor terrorism and nuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]
I am no better informed on Israel and their importance to US interests (or is the argument that its just the right thing to do?) than the average Joe who watches CNN from time to time but I remember seeing people shouting death to America back in the 70’s, the rest seem Israel related.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Had you bothered reading my other posts, you would know that I’m not suggesting using nukes. Why would we need too? Do you really not realize the US has military capabilities outside of our nuclear arsenel?
[/quote]
Sorry, did you mean conventional bombing? Can I ask you to repeat yourself? I am having trouble with the board today and it take a while to scroll through the messages.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the only threat Iran (or one of its proxies) could pose to the US is if they nuked one of our cities. As serious as that may be (and I don’t totally discount it), I’d rate that as less of a threat than Iran using its nuke in the ME somewhere…or in them using their nuke for blackmail, or to increase their power and influence in the region. Leaving aside Iran’s having signed the NNPT, Iran with a nuclear weapon is a direct threat to US INTERESTS in the Middle East. Its a direct threat to EUROPEANS INTERESTS in the Middle East as well…or hadn’t you noticed the Euro’s flailing attempts to head off Iran going forward with its nuclear program?
In short, Iran nuking us is not the main worry…its pretty far down on the list in fact, IMHO. Its not why the Euro’s are worried. Its not why its neighbors are alarmed. A nuclear armed and fanatical Iran in proximity to the worlds oil reserves IS somewhat of a worry though. A nuclear armed Iran with a chip on its shoulder wrt a nuclear armed Israel is a bit of a bother too. A Shi’ite dominated religious theocracy that is nuclear armed in proximity to an unstable, but Shi’ite majority Iraq is a bit of a worry as well. A nuclear armed Iran, dominated by Shi’ite theocracy and in proximity to the Sunni dominated Saudi Arabia is also a bit troubling.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, I see. Those are good points. Are we basically protecting Israel or do we think Iran would bully Jordan and Saudi Arabia too? What do we do about it if Iran says no to incentives and doesn’t respond to economic sanctions?